Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
battle-training-mcp

battle-training-mcp

by ciperx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

enrol_cup

Enroll a selected bot in a sponsored cup, with one bot allowed per account.

Instructions

Enrol one of your bots in a sponsored cup (one bot per account).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "bot": "<bot>"
    },
    "name": "enrol_cup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botYes
slugYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 'one bot per account' constraint, but says nothing about permissions, whether enrolment is reversible or closes at a deadline, or what happens if the quota is already used — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key constraint is front-loaded in parentheses. Slightly under-elaborated rather than bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters needs considerably more: what success looks like, what errors mean, and where the slug comes from. The one constraint does not compensate for these omissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are bare strings. The description only hints that 'bot' is one of your bots and 'slug' refers to a sponsored cup; it gives no format, source (where to get the slug), or how to identify a bot by name versus ID.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (enrol) and resource (a bot into a sponsored cup), which is clear and distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings like get_cup or get_bot. It does not explicitly name a sibling it could be confused with, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_cup or list_ladders, nor any prerequisites such as needing to fetch the cup slug first. The only usage-relevant information is an implicit constraint that the bot must belong to the caller.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools